User talk:Goldenrowley

A few good links for newcomers:

• Wiktionary Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to start a page
• Our format guidelines
• Criteria for inclusion
• Wiktionary Sandbox (a safe place for testing syntax)
• What Wiktionary is not
• FAQ

• sukotyro - from Shaw's mammalia, like an elephant, Java, maybe
• sukotyrus - variation of above

May I ask what your source is for multisourcing? The article Wikipedia:Multisourcing is a stub not a dictionary duplication. You can see the difference between what you wrote on wiktionary and the article. It is a concept not a stainghtforward word, there are many books written about it. I'm removing your labels from the article. If you want to help, please expand the article do not try to remove it. --Emrekenci 12:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

You make it sound like I harmed the article at Wikipedia with lots of "labels". I gave it the business stub which is a helper outer (it puts it in a category). There was a flag on the article asking it to be moved to wiktionary as a definition. This was placed by someone named Exxolon. Since we already have the word at Wiktiaonry defined, I changed it to a flag saying it was already it at wiktionary (in order to stop people from transferring it to Wiktionay). The fact you remove all transfer flags and want to expand the article, is fine with me. Goldenrowley 06:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Please be aware that the entry for fluted should not be on the page for flute. Likewise the page for diseño should not use diseños, since that is a different spelling and should have its own entry. --EncycloPetey 04:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thank you I will double check these.Goldenrowley 04:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Please use the standard header References instead of Sources. The section headers are standardized to a specific set (which you can read about on WT:ELE. And thank you for all the pottery additions. --EncycloPetey 22:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thank you so much. I am new so please excuse my various faux pas. Goldenrowley 22:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

You're picking up new skills rapidly; there's no need to apologize for your good work. --EncycloPetey 22:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Should this be capitalized or not? You've given the entry page a capital name but the headword under the part of speech is not capitalized? While this wouldn't matter on Wikipedia, it does matter here. --EncycloPetey 23:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

It should be upper case, good eye... I've fixed it. Goldenrowley 23:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Please do not add copyright violations. --Connel MacKenzie 06:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

I would say sorry if I thought I did anything wrong, but I did not do a copyright violation in this case I paraphrased and I gave my source as Studio Potter by Krueger ^on Apr 1st: ^ Not sure why you deleted my contribution and derivative words:^ . My sentence does not even sound like the entry at "etymonline.com" for clay. Goldenrowley 01:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

"Fair use" applies to definitions, not etymologies. The fact that your etymology so nicely matches dictionary.com is no coincidence. Adding a reference to a book that doesn't seem to exist doesn't seem particularly helpful, either. Can you supply an ISBN for it? --Connel MacKenzie 15:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

It is an online article and magazine, not a book, here it is online: I paraphrased one sentence of this article. who is dictionary.com Goldenrowley 18:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

(break) Connel, while I appreciate you sent me the new person welcome the other day, I do not understand the issue you are having dont you want clay to have derivative words and contributions from scholarly sources? taking this up on the clay talk page. Goldenrowley 19:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I've rolled back to your version and replied on that talk page. But as I replied, I realized that I probably made an error in doing so. While Wikipedia is a tertiary source, Wiktionary is a secondary source...therefore unable to cite other secondary sources. With the author of that article citing the same source as the number one copyright violation source for Wiktionary (that being, dictionary.com) I'm now quite unsure that we can use your citation, after all. --Connel MacKenzie 04:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

I had trouble finding much about "copy vio" legal principles on this site; but I know historical information like the root words of clay cannot be copyrighted, only the phrasing (speaking from some experience) the clay entry at dictionary.com looks completely different to me? Goldenrowley 04:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

This template automatically assumes there isn't a plural, so you don't have to add the "-" as a parameter. However, take a look at how I edited San Juan Bautista to see one neat trick you can do with the template.

Also notice that I linked the key word in each definition; the one most important for identifying what the definition refers to. This is a good habit to get into because many of our users do not speak English as their first language and may encounter a word they don't know.

Thanks for all the California-related entries! --EncycloPetey 01:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Petey! I immediately started using your idea see San Carlos.. :-) Goldenrowley 01:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

This section is only for words that are derived in the same language. For descendant words in other languages, we use Descendants. --EncycloPetey 06:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

....Thank you ! Goldenrowley 06:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

The list at the top of this category are for words that do not yet have entries. Once the entry is created, and is categorized to appear in the category listing, it is removed from the hard-coded list. --EncycloPetey 18:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Petey! You're always so kindly show me how to do things. Goldenrowley 22:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

A couple things:

1. Thank you. Transwikis suffer immense neglect; they do need someone's attention.
2. If an entry exists, consider replacing it with a redirect. On the same line, after the redirect, you can still leave {{delete}} (no explanation needed.)

--Connel MacKenzie 03:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Okay. It's easy and makes it easier for the next person. Goldenrowley 05:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Please remember to validate your e-mail, then check off "Allow e-mail" in Special:Preferences. --Connel MacKenzie 06:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Oh I see now what you meant: Ok I just listed an email address and confirmed it. .. thanks! Goldenrowley 17:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

OK, please go confirm your acceptance on WT:VOTE! --Connel MacKenzie 21:46, 14 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Now THAT was whacky! --Connel MacKenzie 05:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC) Yes.Reply

Nice thing to have a backup. Goldenrowley 15:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Just had to grab that transwiki ;-) Robert Ullmann 06:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

You may as well...plenty more to share. Thanks! Goldenrowley 06:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Welcome to sysophood. SemperBlotto 08:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Ah, very good. Robert Ullmann 08:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thank you all around ! Goldenrowley 16:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

And could you update your entry in Wiktionary:Administrators/List_of_administrators#List_of_administrators please. SemperBlotto 11:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

The first sentence of the usage note is not clear. --Una Smith 15:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Go ahead and fine tune I was just hoping it could be more concise. I did not think the use of another idiom "stiff upper lip" was much clearer, if taken literally. Goldenrowley 17:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. This template needs to be "subst"ed to work properly. I don't know why. SemperBlotto 08:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

There seems something wrong with it. I don't know how to do that? Goldenrowley 20:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Um... why did you move this Romanian word? --EncycloPetey 20:14, 23 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

I thought we were not supposed to have accents in name spaces in English Wiktionary... am I incorrect?. Goldenrowley 20:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

We frequently and commonly have them. There are some languages where the diacriticals and not used in the page name (e.g. Latin, Arabic, Hebrew), but Romanian is one of the lanugages that requires the diacritics. --EncycloPetey 20:17, 23 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

OKay my mistake. Goldenrowley 20:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

how are you? can i help in any way? --TheRaccoon 18:40, 24 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi Raccoon, just help where ever you like, we could use help with the Transwiki backlog... Goldenrowley 19:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

I did Dorians the way I did it for a reason. It's a rare example where the lemma is the plural. It's wrong to define Dorians as "plural of Dorian" because Dorian is defined as "member of the Dorians" so that's a circular definition. Language Lover 10:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

OK I was not too familiar with this word, but was just trying to take it off the list of uncategorized words (where it's high on the list, through using a template) however I can put it in an English category using another way. Goldenrowley 17:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

In moving these to Appendix: space without changing the links to lower case, you've blocked the ability of my automation to remove the old upper case redirects. (e.g. Off the wall) Would be good to finish editing them? ;-) Robert Ullmann 11:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

I should point out that there isn't any hurry; there are 37000+ others to work on, these can be done later ;-) Robert Ullmann 11:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

btw: you put the 19th idioms glossary in the main namespace, not Appendix: ... I answered your question on my talk page Robert Ullmann 05:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

I noticed the capitalization issue half way through, and will certainly fix it, although it's going to be slow with my machine. Thanx for answering my question on redirects. Goldenrowley 06:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I see you deleted adu the way I intended to do. I didn't succeed, can you tell me how to delete the pages properly? Thanks Mallerd 21:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi Mallerd. Only administrators can delete. If so you will have a delete button at the top of your page and you just use it... properly and conservatively of course.Goldenrowley 03:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the info :D Mallerd 22:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Generally, we reserve "Phrase" as a part of speech for (1) Entries in the Category:English phrasebook, or (2) those entries which function in a sentence as a separate clause (confusing though that terminology is). In this case the item functions as a verb (with object), and in such cases we generally go with the POS of the item's function. Of course, not everyone here would agree, I expect, but my experience suggests it is the common community practice. --EncycloPetey 14:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

This is a weird rule... I'll study the regs here more closely on that because I am doing some idioms. Personally I'd rather see the "real" verbs separated from "verbs that begin phrases"Goldenrowley 16:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for reorganizing it; was more than a bit unwieldy. Robert Ullmann 07:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

No problem... I couldn't use it the way it was setup (it was crashing my poor little computer). I will continue to sort the finished ones out. It looks like it has not been sorted since 2005 or early 2006! I only made it to "G" last night and plan to pick up with "H" very soon. Goldenrowley 20:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

I guess I'm out of the loop on this topic now. I know Main Namespace redirects have been long discussed, back and forth, generally being detested. But Transwiki: namespace redirects, I THOUGHT, were ok. Please enlighten me on what I've missed. If it is just something you've decided to do, well then, I guess I can abide by that. You have been the only rabid person actually taking care of them, so it is fair to give your opinion extra weight. But I'm interested in the rationale, either way.

TIA, --Connel MacKenzie 05:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Well they don't hurt to keep, I can see how the ones from late 2007 through this month may have value for about 2 weeks to hold the space so that the robot or well meaning authors doesn't keep reimporting the same thing into Wikipedia over and over. However there's several reasons that it loses value after that: (1) Most especially, its really hard to see on the Transwiki auto-log which ones are finished, if the links don't turn from blue to red. Turning red is the only visual clue something was dealt with and finished, so that someone (I) can sort out which ones are finished. (2) they don't have any use aftet the import -- no one's going to think to find a word in a dictionariy under the name of "Transwiki" so they don't need to be redirected. Of the standard choices for deletion, a Transwiki redirect might fit in the "no usable content". (3) the redirects have often been manipulated and give a false record over time i.e. many point to an article written by "Malcom" not the original Transwiki written by "Fred". (4) newcomers not understanding Transwki redirect could use it as a jumping off point to mess with, or to write variations and spin off definitions....Having thought of those reasons, I thought the instructions say the finished transwiki redirects will be deleted after about 30 days. I've been doing it according to that, although sped up the process on the very old words from year 2005 since they've been in the hopper for several years. Goldenrowley 04:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

My concern was "external link consistency" but your point about the redlinks is obviously much more important. I wholly agree, and thank you for that explanation. Please try and remind me about that, every now and then.  :-)

• I noticed tonight Wiktionary:Transwiki log/Archive2008 Jan-June. May I request that you break the months up individually? Having combined archived (like Jan-Jun) makes it much harder to automate, down the road. --Connel MacKenzie 05:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Automation is key here and I started the page just to have it on hand and ready. My only concern is the numerous subpages this would create (1 page for each month done)....however at the rate we're getting new words from your import gizmo, it may be time to start doing it by month. Goldenrowley 03:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Right now is a relatively good time for feature requests for Transwiki. Please let me know what you want the Wiktionary side to do, on my talk page. --Connel MacKenzie 16:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia has a different taxonomic classification for this organism. SemperBlotto 19:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Noted and corrected, thanks! Goldenrowley 19:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

When you switch a transwiki to the main namespace, you should probably remove the transwiki tags from it. Thanks. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 05:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

May I ask what was going on with this? -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 06:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Looks like he was just editing an outdated reversion by accident. Dmcdevit·t 10:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

OOPs I was indeed talking by accident on the wrong revision, I do apologize. Goldenrowley 01:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Ah, I was hoping it was something as innocent as that (I didn't think you the type to maliciously screw with discussions). Then you'll have to reinsert your comment, as I reverted the edit. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 01:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Done so, thanks. No hard feelings Goldenrowley 01:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi Goldenrowley, thanks for the adjective template tip - very helpful. I did not know that. I use the en-noun|sg=.. template a lot and I know it adds the entry to the correct category. However, when I am not 100% sure of the plural, I rather just add Category:English nouns and leave the inflection line alone. Same for adjectives. English is not my native language and I don't want to enter something that is not correct. If this is not a good practice, I could leave the noun phrases uncategorized and let others take care of them. Thanks for taking the time to write a note. --Panda10 10:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hello Goldenrowley -- Thanks for adding the "Related terms" section to no slave to fashion. I note that you changed the citation lines of the quotations so that they end with a colon, rather than a comma. I used to format them that way too, but all the examples at WT:QUOTE show the citation line ending in a comma, so I now accept that as the standard. It may not be elegant, but at least it's simple and consistent -- all the elements of the citation line are separated with a comma. I changed no slave to fashion back to commas. Respectfully -- WikiPedant 15:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Okay it looks like you are absolutely correct! thanks for letting me know. Goldenrowley 03:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Goldenrowley! You requested that I clean up the entry I put in last week, the French verb traiter. Can you please give me more detail? I will gladly do it! 00:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and worked on it (traiter) today, and then removed the request for cleanup. Essentially, I just thought (1) the capital letters needed to go away (2) I grouped 2 identical definitions together, to avoid redundant definitions; and (3) the word should be bold in the examples. See if you like it. Goldenrowley 01:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Looks like you're helping out with categorizing as well. Did you know about this page: Wiktionary:Categorizing? Mutante has found and listed the uncategorized pages by language and (for larger lists) by part of speech. The advantage is that you can move through a list without switching langauges/templates, and can also remove portions of the list that are completed. No one but you seems to be currently working on the French. --EncycloPetey 03:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

That is really great list, thanks!! Goldenrowley 04:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

But it seems to be rather incomplete. See Special:UncategorizedPages for the full list. SemperBlotto 07:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Was that you? -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 04:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yes it was me I am working on the L section of Nouns, and I guess I was logged out today, too bad! Goldenrowley 04:02, 28 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

These things happen. Just wanted to make sure before I dumped your IP into the autopatrol page. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 04:10, 28 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Did you mean to enter δῶρον for the etymology? Doron doesn't seem to be an English word. Nadando 04:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I did, thanks! My source said greek and I did not know where to find the Greek letters. Just fixed it. Goldenrowley 04:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

If you don't know the Greek letters, you can enter {{rfscript|Greek}} and someone will come along and fix it. Nadando 04:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Super cool! Thanks! Goldenrowley 04:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi, EncyclopPetey directed me to you in order to get some assistance with the transwiki process. The page in question is w:Photios on the English Wikipedia. I want to transwiki over the etymology section of that article to Wiktionary, while retaining the disambiguation section, and I am having trouble doing so, with my first attempt winding up deleted. Do you know how to handle this. (You can see discussion over this at my talkpage on the English Wikipedia (w:User talk:Sjakkalle)) Sjakkalle 06:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for asking my help. Unfortunately I only know how to transwiki articles manually there is a better way and I just do not know it. I wonder how come your transwiki was deleted, did you import to the namespace "Transwiki:Photios" for an intermediate cleanup? that will ensure it is saved and not deleted, and I will help you clean it up from there, if needed. Goldenrowley 06:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hmm, I placed it at Photios and that was obviously the wrong location. I have posted a new one at Transwiki:Photios, hope that works better. Thanks for your help. Sjakkalle 07:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

It looks like you tried again but an administator deleted it as well. I have reached out to the admin for help/advice how to do it properly. Goldenrowley 17:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Transwiki:Photios is all set to go. Sorry it took me so long to figure it out. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 00:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Ateleas, it looks great, thanks for the help! I've just logged it in at Wiktionary:Transwiki_log/Archive2008_July Goldenrowley 03:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

For future reference, when the transwiki bot is nonfunctional, you can use Special:Import to import pages from the English Wikipedia (or, for that matter, from the English Wikibooks, Wikisource, Wikiquote, Wikiversity, or Wikinews). :-)

—Ruakh_TALK 23:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Ruakh! Much appreciated! Goldenrowley 06:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Oh, I suppose I could've mentioned that. Sorry. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 07:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Why did you restore Transwiki:English-to-Spanish Reference/A /J, /K, /Q, and /V? I had been (slowly) extracting useful content from them and making Spanish entries and translations in the appropriate English entries. You marked the restorations as "Part of series - material for appendix". What useful appendix would you make from them? The information should be made into entries and translations and then these pages should be deleted. They're actually pretty bad quality too, lots of mistakes, lack of precision, gaps in definitions.--Bequw → ¢ • τ 07:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

I did not realize this. There was no sign on the talk page or elsewhere that I could find the info was being used and extracted. The deletion said "Not dictionary material, please see WT:CFI" - However it IS dictionary material that you are making into entries and translations. I guess an appendix would be redundant once those exist for all words. Since you are extracting please feel free to delete once finished, can you just change the deletion note to say the info was used? Goldenrowley 15:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

A better note would help. Will do. Thanks. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 20:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Looking at the recent additions, I see you are working in an area where prepositional phrases occur frequently. EG on-the-job, on the piss, and others. I would be really pleased if you could add Category:English prepositional phrases where appropriate, if possible. Thanks a mil. -- Algrif 16:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'll try to if I remember, thanks! Goldenrowley 15:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hello, from what I understand, the use of the {{en-noun}} is preferred at Wiktionary to {{infl|en|noun}}. The parameter head of infl reads sg with en-noun. So may I recommend that you use en-noun instead? No big issue though. --Dan Polansky 18:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi Dan. I use the en-noun as my preference. However on compound phrases I use {{infl|en|noun}} because it does not force me to chose either a plural or "uncountable" on phrases (i.e. like serial monogamy). This is the main and only reason I used {{infl|en|noun}}. However I would WELCOME a template variant of en-noun which did not force every single phrase to have a plural or else be labeled uncountable? Goldenrowley 22:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi Goldenrowley. I see. Why don't you enter serial monogamy as uncountable? The countable/uncountable distinction applies to noun phrases too, isn't it? --Dan Polansky 23:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hello Dan and Goldenrowley -- Just to interject my 2 pennies worth, I often use {{infl}} for precisely the same sorts of reasons -- it suppresses the countability of complicated nouns, comparability of complicated adjectives and adverbs, and conjugations of complicated verbs. I probably use it least with nouns, but there are complicated nouns where it works well -- a distinction without a difference, for example, where "uncountable" would tend to be confusing (the reader might wonder what's uncountable -- the distinction or the difference or both?). (PS -- One advantage of using the {{infl}} template, instead of just boldfacing the term, is that it does auto-categorize the POS), -- WikiPedant 00:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Okay, understood, no problem. I still think that in the case of "distinction without difference", it is the distinction that is countable, as that is the genus of the term, so to speak, while "without a difference" is the differentia (using the terminology of definitions, maybe not completely properly here). And Google search verifies that "distinctions without difference" is the plural. That said, I understand that {{infl}} makes it possible to postpone the research into plurals. When unsure, I am entering {{en-noun|?}}, but not sure whether that is actually better. Anyway, as said, not a big issue. --Dan Polansky 07:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

I think that it is better NOT to show plurals OR COUNTABILITY on noun-phrases -- there are just too many and its not really the point of a dictionary to show that noun phrases have plurals (or not). I dont know of any other dictionary showing something like that. By the way, if an "en-noun" variation can be designed to suppress that feature I would be delighted. Goldenrowley 23:40, 23 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

AFAIK in Wiktionary, noun phrases are meant to have plurals, just like nouns, judging from a cursory look at Category:English plurals. Sometimes the information that a noun phrase does have a plural is useful, such as in the case of a distinction without a difference. But I don't see any problem if you do just as you please; someone is going to add the plurals later, if they feel they need them. --Dan Polansky 09:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Are you sure it's appropriate to have look through rose-tinted glasses, wear rose-colored glasses, have got rose-colored glasses on, have rose-colored glasses on, et al., rather than have them redirect to rose-colored glasses (or tinted, or coloured, the case may be)? I mean, the fact that all the different forms of the verb exist would seem to imply that it's only the noun that's idiomatic. Whaddaya think?—msh210℠ 20:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

You could be right, I got distracted & was losing time just trying to clean up the different variations! Goldenrowley 20:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Please note: tomatos is usually considered a misspelling, and thyselves is a pronoun, not a noun. --EncycloPetey 07:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for noticing and fixing both words. On tomatos: Google books has 697 hits on tomatos so perhaps it is usable , - although it's outnumbered by tomatoes, which has 17600 hits. Goldenrowley 07:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

How many of the Google books hits are non-English? --EncycloPetey 07:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

A quick scan through the first dozen pages suggests that the majority of "-os" English spellings are 19th century or early 20th century. --EncycloPetey 07:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yes. Perhaps Americanisms (perhaps archaic)... OR perhaps a whole lot of people can't spell. But it's made it into publication for years. I am signing out for the eve right now. Here are some tomato grammar sources that may clarify: .

This is sum of parts in Latin, and does not deserve an entry. It is not idiomatic in Latin. It may deserve to be an English entry, if this phrase has been adopted into English. --EncycloPetey 05:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I was tagging Latin phrases, perhaps it can be formatted to be English, like in utero? Goldenrowley 05:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yes, if it has become an English phrase, then it can. As I say, it would not merit an entry as a Latin term. --EncycloPetey 05:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

It certainly is used in English (accoding to Google Books) so I'll go ahead and format it. Thanks Goldenrowley 05:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

It's not a noun. A clue you can use: most second-parts of species names are Latin adjectives unless they derive from a proper noun (like "smithii"), in which case it might be a noun form, or unless its a Latiification of a Greek word. --EncycloPetey 18:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I guess you were in the middle of that one when I jumped in. I like the end results. Goldenrowley 18:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

That's why my efforts categorizing Latin went a little slower than all the great work you were doing. The uncategorized Latin entries needed a lot of cleanup compared to the English ones. And a hearty thank you for the hard work categorizing you've done. We've barely more than 100 left to go now! --EncycloPetey 18:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

The Latin portions of this Transwiki already exist in the amanuensis entry. Only the portions relevant to the English meaning may need to be incorporated. --EncycloPetey 21:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I merged a few portions of the Transwiki with the amanuensis entry that you pointed out.Goldenrowley 17:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I've already translated the relevant portion and added it to coso. If the edit histories are merged, and the current coso entry kept as is, then that TW page is done. --EncycloPetey 22:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, I finished the merge history into coso. Goldenrowley 23:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hey, it's been a while since I've done a transwiki. Is there any checklist or anything which needs to be marked? Also, {{attention}} might be a more appropriate template than {{rfscript}}, but I imagine in many cases it'll work out the same either way. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 05:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Nice work. Normally once finished like this we should move them from the In progress pages (in this case Wiktionary:Transwiki_log/Year_2007_in_Process) to the archives page, with a link to the new word. Goldenrowley 05:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Cool. Done. Would you double check and make sure I did it right? Many thanks. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 06:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I re-inserted Aponia's middle step but that's generally it - see difference: Goldenrowley 06:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Where did you get the idea that the reg. sign should be part of the entry title? (;-) No ... Robert Ullmann 14:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I guess I was being way too over-vigilant. Goldenrowley 01:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

->Transwiki:List of Chinese exonyms for places in Japan

This article has been marked for a bit with the transwiki tag over on Wikipedia, and it is about to be deleted. Is there someone who can transwiki it quickly so it can be deleted over there? Thanks! 日本穣 04:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Okay I just imported it for you, it's in Wiktionary now. Goldenrowley 04:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure what to call it, but it isn't an alternative spelling, which I though was supposed to have the same pronunciation. "Alternative form"? DCDuring TALK 03:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

That sounds technically correct. I made that change. Goldenrowley 15:31, 15 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Just FYI: there are code changes being done that will allow merging histories, without the delete/move/restore process. I think, but don't know, that you will be able to select "merge" rather that "delete target" on a move; might work a bit differently though.

Should make it a bot easier ... Robert Ullmann 23:32, 24 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the news! That will save time and steps on the merges I've got lined up for transwiki's! Can't wait! Goldenrowley 23:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

How will we know when it is ready? Goldenrowley 04:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for working on RfV cleanup. I haven't looked at the details of what you've, but, even if it isn't perfect, it's much appreciated. DCDuring TALK 23:56, 24 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

and thank you for taking the time to letme know it was appreciated. of particular interest to you: Are you satisfied with the definitions for ringwraith and Ringwraith? Goldenrowley 03:24, 25 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

They look very good to me. Together they are a good illustration of how enWikt would want such entries handled. My personal crusade against excessive use of vertical screenspace would have the verse written continuously, with "/" to indicate linebreaks, but there is no need in this case. DCDuring TALK 10:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yes, agreed. —Ruakh_TALK 15:29, 25 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

That list was created by Connel, or maybe Ariel, at my request, not by me. He can probably help you with it. I'm not good with that type of thing. ;-) Dmcdevit·t 04:03, 30 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Ok, thanks anyway. Goldenrowley 06:51, 31 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for cleaning up. I was not sure about two things. Should I delete the redirects left behind when I move something from Transwikidom? Is there anything else that has to be done or is everything updated automagically? DCDuring TALK 20:59, 24 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

The rule of thumb I have been following is for words Transwiki'd in the past 30 days (i.e. since November 23) I have left the redirect so that the author or "live audience" can find their word again. After about 30 days delete the redirect. I sometimes get impatient and do it sooner because I have yet to see an author recruited from Wikipedia to finish their word on Wiktionary. If we have a recruitment department that would be a perfect way to recruit some help. (grins) There is nothing automatic at this time on Transwiki... from what I understand Connel's autobot was malfunctioning so its turned off. Goldenrowley 21:06, 24 December 2008 (UTC) p.s. nothing automagic either, I move the words from "in progress" to the archive list" by checking on what has changed, once a week or so. Goldenrowley 21:07, 24 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

At least you have a batch process to get it done semi-efficiently. So I can safely delete the redirects and your periodic process will update the in-process list?

I have put the 2005 list on my to-dos so I doubt we'll be recruiting anyone for those. "Automagic" recruiting might be nice. DCDuring TALK 21:23, 24 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Ok you can call me semi-efficient. I know what's changing by checking the "related changes" button on the 3-4 in process lists and/or red links. Thanks for helping with the year 2005! ... Some of the hardest Transwiki's from that year are left, after I culled it down as much as I could. Goldenrowley 21:45, 24 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'm looking for things that are business-related or otherwise catch my fancy or annoy me: Any impulse will do. Are there any veterans who hasn't taken a run at these? DCDuring TALK 22:18, 24 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

I made a new entry for city father motivated by Transwiki:City father. I have incorporated what I found useful (not so much). I would like to just delete it, but doing so wipes out the history. For this case, I think I will replace all the content of the Transwiki with all the content of my entry, delete my entry for city father, and move the Transwiki.

But I have questions about the general case. Do Transwiki deletions go through RfD/O? My proceduralist habits say they should, but there may not be a need. What is current practice? DCDuring Holiday Greetings! 00:05, 26 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

I can see a need to treat each Transwiki as a submittal - and thus a need to remove them using the same criteria as any word. I have been sending the ones I feel are questionable into the RFD and RFV process. I believe I discussed Rfd of Transwiki's in the past with a few people (or at least I read the discussion on the RFD talk pages), and the consensus was it is almost better to discuss and challenge Transiwki's in the general RFD and RFV pages, as we would other submittals. Goldenrowley 06:47, 26 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'm a little confused. The page Wiktionary:Transwiki log/Year 2005 in Process lists 66 items waiting to be processed, but Category:Move to Wiktionary 2005 has 1592 items listed. --EncycloPetey 18:15, 15 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

I found out the category Category:Move to Wiktionary 2005 mislabeled almost all words entered through Feb. of 2007 as year 2005. Thus that category holds words from 2005, 2006 and first half of 2007... a script to fix this would be very nice but I am not crossing my fingers as its not urgent. Goldenrowley 18:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I was wondering if you'd care to help me sort out the Ohlone area. We (and Ethnologue and ISO 639-3) have codes for North and South Ohlone (cst, css), but our categories are all over the place. We have the too-broad Category:Ohlone language, Category:Ohlone derivations (unused), and the accompanying {{Ohlo.}} (unused). Then we have the very narrow Category:Mutsun language. What would you say if we reorganized it to have Category:Northern Ohlone language and Category:Southern Ohlone language so we can standardize on the codes, and then create Category:Mutsun (w/o "language") as a subcat of the southern one? Then we can fit the entries into the right cats (Northern: Muwekma. Southern: Ahmah, Noso-N). Sound logical? --Bequw → ¢ • τ 10:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

I think the northern/southern distinction is an unnecessary bureacratic distinction and even if the ISO classified them that way it creates two folders in middle management, so to speak that I could do without. We'd still have to create folders for each language. I base my thoughts on the research at Wikipedia Ohlone. Many scholars think there are 6-7 languages, not just a north and a south language....and that Mutsen is one of the unique languages. I think these 6-7 languages shouldn't neatly be "simplified" into north and south, not with modern research. That said, I'd rather see each Ohlone (specific) language/dialect get their own folder treeing directly from (broad) Ohlone. What may be most helpful and accurate were if Ohlonean words are sorted like we treat British, US and Australian English where you can see them all under the word "Ohlone" or see them sorted by language in a subset. I know of only one word that is a descendant from Ohlonean languages (abalone), but there could be more. Goldenrowley 20:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

I've noted this at Wiktionary talk:Languages without ISO codes#Ohlone. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 22:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Ok. Thanks for discussing with me. Goldenrowley 02:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Somebody is putting the requests, but Semperblotto told me to sort it out and if it doesn't get resolved after February, it'll get deleted. Steel Blade 02:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. Steel Blade 02:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

It's English. I've gone ahead and added the appropriate header, that's all that is needed.Goldenrowley 02:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Moved to: Appendix:List of Finnish homonyms

You added an attention -tag on that page. I can see a lot could be done. The problem is to decide exactly what. Would you be able to advise me to a homonyms -page which could serve as a model? --Hekaheka 20:08, 15 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi Hekaheak, I am not sure what appendix will be the best example, but you could take a look at some of the other language appendices at Category:Appendices by language for examples. I put the tag on this page as I do not speak Finnish and can't judge its contents. If you or someoneelse starts to clean it up, we can move it into Wiktionary as an appendix once its accurate. Goldenrowley 01:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

I have now checked the terms, and they are real. I also wikified the links to entries. I think the criteria for inclusion should be quite strict, i.e. only words in their base form should be approved. That's because Finnish is an inflected and conjugated language and there are alltogether probably a few million Finnish word forms. Would you like to check what I have done and give your comments. My idea is that everything below the contents -table should be erased. Its just a temporary storage for the material that I would not want to include in the entry. --Hekaheka 10:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

While I cannot read Finnish, I agree with your assessment since you've been proofing it as a Finnish speaker. I'll go ahead and comment out the "questionable" section. I am going to move it today into the name: Appendix:List of Finnish homonyms Goldenrowley 22:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

I notice that you added the imports I did recently to the transwiki log, and thank you for that. I am curious, as the most active editor in that area, whether you think it is still necessary to maintain. The log was originally set up before Special:Import existed, and we were doing transwikis by manually copying the text to Wiktionary and the edit history to the article's talk page, and creating a manual log of our actions as we went along. However, now that we have an import log, I wonder what purpose it serves, at least for automatically imported entries, that isn't served by the import log and/or the page index. Dmcdevit·t 22:57, 22 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

I am using it very actively for several reasons: I am counting the incoming words per month and year, working off the list categorically, and more importantly noting the history of each Transwiki (including failures and duplicates) which is one thing our special import log does not do. If we dont know where words go (whether they fail or pass) we have very little ability to manage them and find them. Having just said that, I've had some thoughts about streamlining the list... instead of the current format I could just cut and paste whatever appeared on the import log about every two weeks or so, which would be much easier than recreating the list in the style we have it. However I do love the arrows pointing to the finished words. Or I wonder if a new bot can start a list page, noting all moves from Transwiki to regular Wiki, or deletions of TW words with cute arrows. What do you think? Goldenrowley 04:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Okay, thanks, this is interesting. One of the reasons I ask is because I am thinking about setting up a bot to replace Connel's, and I think we might want to rethink the process beforehand. Another question I have is if anyone has any use for the Wikipedia transwiki log? I know we used to use it for coordinating the cleanup effort, but that was before fancy dated categories and such. I don't imagine it's of any use for Wiktionarians, either. Other than that, let me know if you have any other ideas about changes to the current process. (I'm not making any promises about the bot though. ;-) ) Dmcdevit·t 01:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

The Transwiki logs have one use that is not done, anywhere else. Our logs tracks where incoming articles go to, unless we can do that simpler, I think we need to keep a list that is on a "page" going. Tracking where articles come from is automatic, but we should have another way to track where they go. I also like how the way we have set up its all archived in one place so you see the word come in, then its final fate. If a bot can replicate the way it is setup now, I would be thrilled. Lets take an example> a word comes in, the person who spruces it up fixes the spelling or changes its script or changes it to the lemma word, when he imports it to the main spacee...there would be no clue to the person at Wikipedia, where some of the imported words went, especially now that we can "suppress" the history of words moved from Transwiki to mainspace. In worse case, they'd reimport it thinking it was new a few months later, all misspelled and kittywampus. Saying that, I don't know how to program bots and cannot find the bot-programming instructions.... As long as I got your attention I would love to have a bot take all the words that were imported in years 2006 and 2007, that are mislabeled as "Move to Wiktionary 2005" and fix the date, as a priority, because everything before March 2007 is misfiled under 2005. Is that possible? Goldenrowley 05:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Example: Wiktionary:Transwiki_log/Archive2009 - maintained listGoldenrowley 05:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

It would be simple to make everything in Wiktionary:Transwiki log/Year 2006 in Process be in the "Move to Wiktionary 2006" category (and remove any 2005 category) and do the same with Wiktionary:Transwiki log/Year 2007 in Process. Would that do it, or is it more complicated than that? (I'm not sure of any other easy way to know whether an entry belongs in the 2006 or 2007 category.) Dmcdevit·t 04:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

That would be perfect... exactly what I had in mind! Goldenrowley 05:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Okay, right now all the entries in Category:Move to Wiktionary 2005 are either from the 2005 "In progress" page, or had no incoming links (i.e., weren't listed on any transwiki log page). The only issue now is that some of the entries had both the 2005 category and a 2006/7, and now with the "2005" replaced with "2006/7," some page are in both a year category (Category:Move to Wiktionary 2007) and a month one (Category:Move to Wiktionary 2007-01). I wasn't sure if it mattered enough to bother fixing. Dominic·t 03:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, thank you! It looks great, much truer to reality. Don't worry about the 50-60 leftovers that were never logged...I can see them in the 2005 category and deal with them manually. Goldenrowley 04:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

When you come across one of these that needs cleanup, please tag it with {{attention|la}}. Most of these need additional cleanup, such as I did for (deprecated template usage) sagittarii. There is no such thing in Latin as "plural of", since there is typically more than one plural form. --EncycloPetey 03:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Sounds like a good idea. Thanks ! Goldenrowley 03:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Would you be willing to comment on this thread? I think your opinion rather outweighs anyone else on this particular topic. Many thanks. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 02:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

OK. That was fun. Goldenrowley 04:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi Goldenrowley,

Since you commented at Wiktionary:Beer parlour#Transwikis from other Wiktionaries., I wanted to make sure you were aware of the resultant vote, Wiktionary:Votes/2009-03/Transwikis from other Wiktionaries.

—Ruakh_TALK 13:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for letting me know I was oblivious. I went and cast my votes. Goldenrowley 04:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Why did you call several Indian names "Interlingua"? Did you mean Translingual by any chance? I always classify the romanizations of Indian and Arabic given names as "English" when they are spelled the English way. There are categories "English male/female given names from India/Hindi" etc. Those names ought to have the original Devanagari etymology and links to original spelling, but since such entries don't exist, all we can do is to store them together and hope that some day we'll get an editor who speaks the languages of India and is interested in given names.

Romanizations from other languages - Russian, Thai, modern Greek etc. - could well be called Translingual. But suitable categories don't exist - "Russian male given names in Roman script" would sound sensible to me, but it's a touchy subject. See Talk:Cyril for one of the discussions. If you can't think of a category, please just put new names in Category:English male/female given names, I check it every month.

Thank you for putting order to all the horrible Transwikis. I get a headache just looking at them. I think you could be more ruthless with obvious nonsense. Transwiki:Malamalama: somebody hears a Hawaiian word in an English movie and makes an entry in an English encyclopedia! I could copy that word - mālamalama - from the Pukui-Elbert dictionary, but there are thousands of words there that we are missing, why pick out this one? The English , and Google, are famous for ignoring diacritical marks. Transwiki:Nadege actually meant Nadège and Rocio was Rocío. --Makaokalani 16:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thank you so much for contacting me I admit to a little a confusion what to do with Indian and Sanskrit words. I understand there are multiple languages in India, which is why I picked Interlingua for names ... but I like your proposed way of handling them and will follow that going forward! Actually it is a relief to know there is a way to do it and someone does check names monthly...thank you for the advice and help. Goldenrowley 20:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

There is also Category:English surnames from India (but no subcategories by language, that's too difficult) and Category:English surnames from Arabic.--Makaokalani 13:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Unlike related terms or Derived terms, the Synonyms section is formatted as a list with commas between entries. Typically, there is a parenthetical note at the beginning on the line to identify which definition those synonyms pertain to, although this is often absent when there is but one definition given. --EncycloPetey 03:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

....Okay, thank you for keeping me up to date. Goldenrowley 05:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Arggh. I just realized that I used non-governmental organizations in that def. in a way that really confuses things because NGO is restricted to non-government not-for profits (as it has been for 20+ years. I can't think straight about this right now. DCDuring TALK 01:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

That's okay... I think I just "straightened" that out, as part of my edit titled "removing redundancy" Goldenrowley 03:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Following up on something I noticed while studying the transwiki process ...

Noting the transfer of w:Mirliton (now a redirect) "done by hand" directly into Wictionary mainspace RATHER THAN into Twanswiki space (which I assume was a mistake). And I see that it has now been deleted from Wiktionary. A copy does not appear to be in Transwiki space (but I may be looking wrong).

QUESTION: Was the manual dump to Wiktionary mainspace a goof (that may be repeated, and hence the people doing it need to be notified), or an acceptable way to do it (and it was analyzed and deleted from Wiktionary as a matter of course)? Proofreader77 21:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

It was not acceptable, which is why I deleted it. An editor is allowed to contribute content to Wikipedia without releasing his/her copyright on that content; all (s)he is required to do is license the content under (specific) licenses, one term of which is that people have to attribute his/her work to him/her. Manually copying content from Wikipedia to Wiktionary, without indicating that that's what you're doing, violates the terms of these licenses, and is therefore a copyright violation. The transwiki-import process solves this issue by preserving the edit history, so that the "history" tab gives full attribution to all contributors. (And yes, we have transwiki-imported this entry; see Transwiki:Mirliton. However, it will need to be converted into a dictionary entry before we can move it into the main namespace. For example, right now it's not clear which (if any) senses are English, which (if any) are French, and which (if any) are both.) —Ruakh_TALK 22:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Many thanks. I couldn't find the Transwiki copy for some reason (thought I'd clicked all the check boxes etc).

One thought ... it appears someone believed they could do a direct import to Wiktionary mainspace (AND NOTE, when it was in Wiktionary mainspace for a bit, I believe I looked at the history and saw that the Wikipedia edits had been brought over.) Does some kind of notification need to be placed somewhere: "Don't do that"?

As for a "complex" entry like that ... yes, that's a "messy" thing to dump in Wiktionary's lap. For the record, I think some messy things like that page at Wikipedia could just be left alone without harm to the infosphere ... rather than, yes, dumping it over here ... and redirecting the Wikipedia page to one thing that Google will then report THAT IS WHAT IT IS. (Excuse soapbox. LOL) Again, many thanks. Proofreader77 00:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Assuming we're talking about the same page (]), then no, it had only one edit, and its edit summary was just the auto-generated thing of the form Created page with ' '. The transwiki documentation does explain that you're not supposed to just copy-and-paste like that, but people don't always read the documentation. :-/

I think that transwiki-ing it over here was quite reasonable — if it's a real word, then it's one we don't have an entry for — but I agree with you that Wikipedia should have kept some version of it as a disambig page. A lot of the content was not Wikipedia-appropriate, but a lot of it was. In fact, I think I'll go over there and do some work on that.

—Ruakh_TALK 01:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Didn't mean to give you work to do, but I think it's good work. :) Cheers. Proofreader77 01:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Ruakh thank you for responding and handling this one. I've found that the words flagged on Wikipedia to transfer to Wiktoonary is usually chosen by one person ...so its as good as that person, and they often forget to check for duplicates and/or think of purging the the encyclopedia parts first. Proofreader is right, many would be best stay put at Wikipedia as disambig pages, or merged and redirected to a larger topic. Goldenrowley 03:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi and thanks for telling me. The |es| thing I knew about but had made a silly mistake on that one (and hadn't noticed it....) but hadn't known about linking the compound words' headword. I will do so in the future... :) have a nice day!!!! L☺g☺maniac chat? 12:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

The way I've been doing it, a glossary is a list of terms with definitions, in align with the definition of glossary. So IMHO Appendix:Glossary of false friends should be named Appendix:List of false friends or Appendix:False friends.

However, others may not share my position, as is seen from the current discussion on the titles of glossaries, running in Beer Parlour in WT:BP#Titles of glossaries. It find it good not to abuse the term "glossary".--Dan Polansky 09:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thank you I don't have a strong opiunion on this one whatever you and the group decides for on False friends, is fine with me. Perhaps it should be in a translation or translingual category. Goldenrowley 23:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Can you please undelete the following glossaries that you have deleted in the Spring of 2009? Alghough Wikipedia decided to keep them, they are also useful to have at Wiktionary.

Requested undeletions:

1. w:Anatomical_terms_of_location → Transwiki:Anatomical_terms_of_location
2. w:Anatomical_terms_of_motion → Transwiki:Anatomical_terms_of_motion
3. w:Anime_and_manga_terminology → Transwiki:Anime_and_manga_terminology
4. w:Bicycling_terminology → Transwiki:Bicycling_terminology
5. w:Buddhist_terms_and_concepts → Transwiki:Buddhist_terms_and_concepts
6. w:Chess_problem_terminology → Transwiki:Chess_problem_terminology
7. w:Colombian_music_terminology → Transwiki:Colombian_music_terminology
8. w:Curling_terminology → Transwiki:Curling_terminology
9. w:Fencing_terminology → Transwiki:Fencing_terminology
10. w:Flag_terminology → Transwiki:Flag_terminology
11. w:Glossary_of_education-related_terms_(A-C) → Transwiki:Glossary_of_education-related_terms_(A-C)
12. w:Glossary_of_education-related_terms_(D-F) → Transwiki:Glossary_of_education-related_terms_(D-F)
13. w:Glossary_of_education-related_terms_(G-L) → Transwiki:Glossary_of_education-related_terms_(G-L)
14. w:Glossary_of_education-related_terms_(M-O) → Transwiki:Glossary_of_education-related_terms_(M-O)
15. w:Glossary_of_education-related_terms_(P-R) → Transwiki:Glossary_of_education-related_terms_(P-R)
16. w:Glossary_of_education-related_terms_(S) → Transwiki:Glossary_of_education-related_terms_(S)
17. w:Glossary_of_education-related_terms_(T-Z) → Transwiki:Glossary_of_education-related_terms_(T-Z)
18. w:Glossary_of_firefighting_terms → Transwiki:Glossary_of_firefighting_terms
19. w:Glossary_of_Indian_economic_terms → Transwiki:Glossary_of_Indian_economic_terms
20. w:Glossary_of_Lepidopteran_terms → Transwiki:Glossary_of_Lepidopteran_terms
21. w:Glossary_of_medical_terms_related_to_communications_disorders → Transwiki:Glossary_of_medical_terms_related_to_communications_disorders
22. w:Glossary_of_owarai_terms → Transwiki:Glossary_of_owarai_terms
23. w:Glossary_of_partner_dance_terms → Transwiki:Glossary_of_partner_dance_terms
24. w:Glossary_of_spirituality-related_terms_(A-C) → Transwiki:Glossary_of_spirituality-related_terms_(A-C)
25. w:Glossary_of_spirituality-related_terms_(D-F) → Transwiki:Glossary_of_spirituality-related_terms_(D-F)
26. w:Glossary_of_spirituality-related_terms_(G-L) → Transwiki:Glossary_of_spirituality-related_terms_(G-L)
27. w:Glossary_of_spirituality-related_terms_(M-O) → Transwiki:Glossary_of_spirituality-related_terms_(M-O)
28. w:Glossary_of_spirituality-related_terms_(P-R) → Transwiki:Glossary_of_spirituality-related_terms_(P-R)
29. w:Glossary_of_spirituality-related_terms_(S) → Transwiki:Glossary_of_spirituality-related_terms_(S)
30. w:Glossary_of_spirituality-related_terms_(T-Z) → Transwiki:Glossary_of_spirituality-related_terms_(T-Z)
31. w:Glossary_of_terms_associated_with_diabetes → Transwiki:Glossary_of_terms_associated_with_diabetes
32. w:Glossary_of_terms_in_Ayurveda → Transwiki:Glossary_of_terms_in_Ayurveda
33. w:Glossary_of_terms_in_The_Urantia_Book → Transwiki:Glossary_of_terms_in_The_Urantia_Book
34. w:Glossary_of_wildland_fire_terms → Transwiki:Glossary_of_wildland_fire_terms
35. w:Italian_music_terminology → Transwiki:Italian_music_terminology
36. w:List_of_Ainu_terms → Transwiki:List_of_Ainu_terms
37. w:List_of_ice_hockey_terminology → Transwiki:List_of_ice_hockey_terminology
38. w:List_of_musical_terminology → Transwiki:List_of_musical_terminology
39. w:Numismatic_terminology → Transwiki:Numismatic_terminology
40. w:Solitaire_terminology → Transwiki:Solitaire_terminology
41. w:Tennis_terminology → Transwiki:Tennis_terminology
42. w:Topology_glossary → Transwiki:Topology_glossary

--Dan Polansky 12:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

They are 2-3 years out of date in many cases, its pretty crazy to update them here from old entries, as they continued to be updated at Wikipedia . What I would suggest if they're useful is some sort of soft redirect to Wikpiedia. The other idea but less in my opinion "inviting" would be to move them from Wikipedia with a fresh move (so you capture all the new edits that happened in between the last moves). Goldenrowley 01:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

I've had a look at some of them at Wikipedia to see that not so many changes have occurred during the last two years. The glossaries typically grow quickly after they are started, and then stagnate. I'd like to have the glossaries here in Wiktionary, so I can format them according to dictionary requirements, turning the definitions into genus-differentia definitions proper when needed, as I've done with many of those that I could format before they were deleted. Can you, just to get started, undelete Transwiki:Topology_glossary? I'll format it immediately. See also the changes in the Topology glossary between 24 November 2007 and 3 July 2009. --Dan Polansky 08:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Instead of undeleting, let's reimport anything needed from Wikipedia, okay? It will be more current. I'll do it now before I get distracted. Goldenrowley 05:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. Reimporting is surely an option. I just thought that undeleting would be less work while not much would be lost as compared to reimporting. --Dan Polansky 09:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

actually its a breeze to import if you use this page: Special:ImportGoldenrowley 21:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

FYI: I've archived the RFD discussion to help talk:Transwiki.​—msh210℠ 00:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Good idea. Thank you! Goldenrowley 00:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

You should not use the templates {{top}} or {{mid}}. They're being phased out because they conflict with language codes. You can use {{top2}} and {{mid2}} for lists of derived terms/related terms, or the nifty {{rel-top}}/{{der-top}} which can be closed and opened. -- Prince Kassad 21:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for letting me know, and I am glad to learn there's "nifty" alternatives. Goldenrowley 00:56, 13 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

I pasted this across from Wikipedia which has seemed to get me in some trouble. I am told you are experienced in doing transfers properly. Please could you help me.

John Cross 00:25, 5 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Okay working on it, making the transfer of the history and merging with your work. In the future,the only place Users can do transfers that i know of is through this page: Special:Import (...which I've noted fails if you have the requested page open so close the page first. if does not work first time wait a minute and try again) Goldenrowley 05:45, 5 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

thank you very much for your help

John Cross 17:18, 12 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Russian? Does not seem to use the right alphabet. SemperBlotto 18:20, 26 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

I am workiong on it, it's каламбур m (kalambúr) Goldenrowley 18:21, 26 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

I moved it to the correct script, каламбур Goldenrowley 17:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Please, where did you find this given name - was it in the transwiki? Ancestry.com has never heard of it. --Makaokalani 12:39, 6 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

I saw it used in English literature at Google Books. However on double checking the quotes this morning, I learned each instance was a typo by Google, as the text says "Evadne". I'll move it to Evadne. Goldenrowley 16:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

What's a "contained term", though? Equinox ◑ 01:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

It's garbley gook... my oversight. How about I take out the word "contained"Goldenrowley 01:09, 11 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi Goldenrowley,

I notice that you are actively maintaining/filing the Transwiki log. Would you consider listing yourself as a Transwiki maintainer at WT:DW (Dishwashing)?

(I recently started working a bit on the transwiki log as part of “doing my part”, though you seem to have it well in hand; thanks for all your work!)

—Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 04:19, 16 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi NBarth. thanks for thinking of me. Sure. I appreciate any help you can give to the Transwiki's. The ones left for year 2007/2008 can often take a lot of time as glossaries and/or are those that I have the hardest time with. Goldenrowley 21:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

No problem! …and yeah, glossaries are admittedly slow going, but I’ll see what I can do. (apologies for long delay in reply.) Soon, this Augean task will be done!

—Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 07:24, 14 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Typo for Kleiderschrank isn't it? Mglovesfun (talk) 23:30, 13 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

EEk! or maybe alternate spelling. Goldenrowley 16:19, 14 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

for finishing off all the Transwiki:English-to-Spanish Reference pages. You sure do have some fortitude! --Bequw → ¢ • τ 03:25, 19 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

THANKS for the kind words. Actually that set was culled through with the the help of another. There's only Transwiki left for year 2007. I plan to do it now if I can stomach it, having left the longest ones for last. Then I'll be celebrating. Goldenrowley 00:35, 20 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

għasafar = abacuses? I don't think so. Looks more like a bird to me (GoogleImages --Rising Sun talk? 20:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

You're right, I've fixed it... found a programming error on my part. :-) Goldenrowley 21:49, 20 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

I do not want to come across as contumelious but please consider casting your vote for the tile logo as—besides using English—the book logo has a clear directionality of horizontal left-to-right, starkly contrasting with Arabic and Chinese, two of the six official UN languages. As such, the tile logo is the only translingual choice left and it was also elected in m:Wiktionary/logo/archive-vote-4. Warmest Regards, :)--_thecurran Speak your mind ^{my past} 03:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks but the page won't let me edit it to vote, perhaps I don't know how to. :-( Goldenrowley 18:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Although it might make sense for wiktionary - the photo with a caption 'train locomotive' seemed to be somewhat problematic (it resonates with non native english speaker style usage - bit like 'information's'- so I changed it to 'steam locomotive' - as you appear to be the editor who did the improve on that particular item - I have taken the opportunity to explain - however you might wish to revert me for some reason - but 'train locomotive' against a picture of a steam locomotive seemed as absurd as wikipedias' trains' project and 'ships' project - absurdly simplistic names for complex subjects - cheers SatuSuro 12:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

makes sense to me. Goldenrowley 18:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thats a relief - sorry not on much - must drop in more often SatuSuro 05:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Aren't these flakes of rye? Mglovesfun (talk) 06:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

That's true, the one thing that might qualify it as a word as it is used as the name of some cereal (which more than a sum of parts?) Goldenrowley 19:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

I urge you to vote. (I don't know which way you'll vote, but I want more voices, especially English Wiktionarians' voices, heard in this vote.) If you've voted already, or stated that you won't, and I missed it, I apologize.​—msh210℠ 17:00, 21 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Where exactly does the OED say that? Ƿidsiþ 09:32, 23 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

I copied it from this entry under dweomer written back in 2008, which is allegedly the variation of dwimmer:

I think you gotta be a bit more careful. Delete anything that's not dictionary material, and don't move anything into the main namespace if it's in the wrong script. A bunch of transwikis got deleted in our cull of entries written in the wrong script. Though not Sanskrit, see w:Sanskrit language. Mglovesfun (talk) 05:39, 10 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

It's not intentional... I came down to the final 20 entries from 2009, which I'd saved for last as the most difacult for me to format. I was careful to only move in words I thought were real words. On those scripts I didn't know at all, I put a rfscript. If your not satisfied please add "request for cleanup" on them. Goldenrowley 09:13, 10 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

I've also culled for scrips in the past. I just checked my deletion log to see what recent words I might have moved that were later culled for being in the wrong script, and the last word deleted from my decisions to move in was Samvit in 7 April 2010. No systemic problem as far as I know Goldenrowley 09:30, 10 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi Goldenrowley, I think "Sinugboanon" is only a single noun so why did you put into the cebuano phrasebook ? LapuLapuhimself 20:33, 13 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

	Hello, Goldenrowley. You have new messages at Anypodetos's talk page.
	You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{talkback}} template.

Your addition to Nike is being discussed here, and I was just wondering if you had the source handy. Thanks. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 23:25, 16 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi Goldenrowley,

I am Dutch and I doubt very much that shrank is a Dutch word. German yes (Schrank), Dutch no. The English "sh" (German sch) sound is not native to Dutch. In the few instances it has entered the language it is written "sj". The Dutch word for Schrank is kast. Jcwf (talk) 01:37, 3 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

• I defer to your better understanding of the language. Goldenrowley (talk) 20:21, 15 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I am on the verge of rewriting Elfhame. I think you may have created the entry based on some falsified misinformation regarding Elfhame / Elphame which has been disseminated in wiki, and perhaps viral all over the internet. The claim that this is an "Old English" word has no basis, quite self-evidently it seems to me, since the Thomas Rhymer ballad doesn't exist in Old English, and moreover, none of the ballad specimens actually use "Elfame" or "Elphame" (the closest being "Elfland") except that Robert Graves in his edition saw fit to make this substitution.

The forms "Elf-hame" and "Elphame" are modern concoctions, you might say. The -hame part was speculative readings by Pitcairn who edited the various witch trial records. In the actual texts you read elfane, elfame (so no -hame). The further suggestion that this is may be cognate to Álfheimr is extremely iffy, I doubt it can be attributed to any reliable source scholarship, let alone represented as consensus mainstream opinion, and I suspect it is either someone's pure hunch, or something out of Robert Graves. The bibliography on the ballad sources, Pitcairn etc. are in the rewrites I've done to Wikipedia:Thomas the Rhymer and Queen of Elphame

Only the forms elfame and elphyne are given in DOST ( Dictionary of the Older Scottish Tongue) according to the “Dictionary of the Scots Language”, in (Please provide the book title or journal name)‎, 2013 October (last accessed) website. Unlike the OED it doesn't meticulously list all variant forms, so it is not definitive, but still indicates that "-hame" is not the normalized form as far as the dictionary editors are concerned. I'm not likely to start adding a whole lot of Scots words in wiktionary, though I think I'll add these two. --Kiyoweap (talk) 07:25, 14 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

• That is very interesting and thought out. Thanks for the help with this word. Goldenrowley (talk) 20:21, 15 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

I am having some trouble defining some of these terms, but your definitions do not seem to match how they are actually used; you will want to provide quotations, formatted as described in WT:QUOTE, to support them. Moreover, your formatting needs a lot of work; please see WT:ELE or look at existing entries. Thanks —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:49, 15 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

• I am sorry for such a belated reply. I do not know which words you refer to.Goldenrowley (talk) 05:49, 28 August 2014 (UTC)Reply